| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Patches (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: array support patch phase 1 patch |
| Date: | 2003-05-25 13:15:38 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0305251205410.1897-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Joe Conway writes:
> I personally don't understand why we should hide them from users. If I
> prefer to use array_append(var1, var2) rather than (var1 || var2),
> what's the problem? Its a matter of taste as to which is better.
The problem is that this approach leads to bloat without bound. Maybe
tomorrow someone prefers append_array(var1, var2) or var1 + var2. The
standard says it's var1 || var2, there is no technical or substantial
aesthetical argument against it, so that's what we should use.
> And in any case, array_accum() is intended to be used for building
> custom aggregates, so that needs to be documented.
Can you give an example of an aggregate or a class of aggregates where
this would be useful?
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2003-05-25 13:34:29 | Re: updated win32 patch |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-05-25 13:14:59 | Re: array support patch phase 1 patch |